Santorum fails to correct lady who calls Obama a Muslim

[Empress of Groovy 373]

I do not always have time to urinate between ejaculations. I am married to a Ukrainian, it is not always an option. Alla does not snore, chew with her mouth open or spill sperm on her vulva, she is cultured.

I think you mean semen. In any case, let's leave your urethra out of it.

[xebec 195]

For President you are correct. The Constitution does not specify how electors are chosen. It DOES require elections for Representatives, and by amendment, for Senators. You have a RIGHT to vote in "Federal Elections" what you do NOT have a right to is a federal election for President. The method of choosing electors is determined by the state. In Bush v. Gore the issue was whether Florida had a right to count the ballots as they did as opposed to how other states do it. YES. In fact, Florida is under no obligation to allow anyone to vote for President.

You DO have a right to vote, you do NOT have a right to vote for President.

I would love to see the actual language in the constitution (or any court ruling) that affirms the right of any individual to vote. If what you are saying is that each state must create a group of eligible voters (i.e. establish a privelege for certain people within the state to vote) in order to comply with Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, I agree....but that does not create a right for any individual.

The issue is really quite well-vetted. In Alexander v Mineta (2000) The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that citizens had no individual claim to the right to vote for representatives to congress. Several bills have been proposed to address this precise issue, including House Joint Resolution 28 (2005), proposing an amendement affirming an individual right to vote. Other proposals for amending the constitution have been put forward in the past. Numerous scholars have written about this problem (if it is a problem). I understand that this defies conventional wisdom on the matter....believe me, I understand- I have to teach government every year, and I get a lot of blowback by teaching what is technically true here. No individual right to vote currently exists within the framework of our constitution.

[slim 1,530]

I would love to see the actual language in the constitution (or any court ruling) that affirms the right of any individual to vote. If what you are saying is that each state must create a group of eligible voters (i.e. establish a privelege for certain people within the state to vote) in order to comply with Article 1, Section 4 of the Constitution, I agree....but that does not create a right for any individual.

The issue is really quite well-vetted. In Alexander v Mineta (2000) The Supreme Court upheld the lower court's ruling that citizens had no individual claim to the right to vote for representatives to congress. Several bills have been proposed to address this precise issue, including House Joint Resolution 28 (2005), proposing an amendement affirming an individual right to vote. Other proposals for amending the constitution have been put forward in the past. Numerous scholars have written about this problem (if it is a problem). I understand that this defies conventional wisdom on the matter....believe me, I understand- I have to teach government every year, and I get a lot of blowback by teaching what is technically true here. No individual right to vote currently exists within the framework of our constitution.

It clearly spells out our gun rights.

Amazing that so many americans (little a on purpose) assume they have the right to vote based on very vague constitutional wording yet they deny others their rights - that are very clearly spelled out - to bear arms.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

You were divorced at one time, right?

no

[xebec 195]

It clearly spells out our gun rights.

Amazing that so many americans (little a on purpose) assume they have the right to vote based on very vague constitutional wording yet they deny others their rights - that are very clearly spelled out - to bear arms.

That's a good point. And it's also the reason I’m so pedantic about the use of the word "rights." By folding every conceivable privilege into what were supposed to be a limited and sacrosanct set of rights, we dilute everything. Rights are innate, and aren't created or (legitimately) denied by government except under remarkable circumstances. Privileges are created by government, and government has the final say in who enjoys those privileges (precisely the situation with voting).

I like the way this was stated by historian T.R. Fehrenbach, in writing about the issue of "voting rights"

"What it comes down to is that we have fewer rights than we think but, as Americans, are more privileged than we know."

[Dan and Judy 614]

It clearly spells out our gun rights.

Amazing that so many americans (little a on purpose) assume they have the right to vote based on very vague constitutional wording yet they deny others their rights - that are very clearly spelled out - to bear arms.

In their infinite wisdom the founding fathers left a loop hole you could drive an aircraft carrier through. They didn't mention ammunition. So naturally the ammunition can be outlawed. As long as you are shooting

blanks nobody gets hurt.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

As long as you are shooting blanks nobody gets hurt.

[slim 1,530]

"What it comes down to is that we have fewer rights than we think but, as Americans, are more privileged than we know."

That is a very accurate statement.

In their infinite wisdom the founding fathers left a loop hole you could drive an aircraft carrier through. They didn't mention ammunition. So naturally the ammunition can be outlawed. As long as you are shooting blanks nobody gets hurt.

Do you have any idea why the revolutionary war even started? It wasn't over taxes... or even guns... it was over powder!

Do you think men who'd just overthrown their own government by force would leave any kind of loophole? The fact that we dispute what this word means or that word could mean some 220+ years after the fact is a slap in the face to their fortitude.

[Penguin_ie 5,996]

**** Many posts removed for name calling, insulting other VJers and their families, and Off Topic posts. Discuss the news in the OP, not eachother. Ban hammer is ready. *****

Edited January 25, 2012 by Penguin_ie

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

Sooo... calling someone out on their pattern of lying is against TOS but posting about your intimate (and frankly stomach-churning) sexual relations in detail is acceptable?

[Dan and Judy 614]

Do you have any idea why the revolutionary war even started? It wasn't over taxes... or even guns... it was over powder!

Powder without balls would inevitably lead to an impotent discharge.

[Rebecca Jo 1,962]

Well, I missed all the fun "invisibilizing".

Yet I sense the stuff that should have been deleted was not.

[slim 1,530]

Powder without balls would inevitably lead to an impotent discharge.

But it still makes the loud boom and that's all that's really necessary.

[Amby 490]

So if they care for their children what business is it of yours how effective their form of birth control is? Why are so many people hung up on what I do in the bedroom with my wife? I really do not care what you do with yours. Just take care of the results.

I do not always have time to urinate between ejaculations. I am married to a Ukrainian, it is not always an option. Alla does not snore, chew with her mouth open or spill sperm on her vulva, she is cultured.

My friend and I have been trying to figure this one out for the past 4-5 hours. Please explain.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

My friend and I have been trying to figure this one out for the past 4-5 hours. Please explain.

You want me to explain why you and your friend have so much time to spend on 6 words I typed? Sorry, can't, but I genuinely appreciate your interest. Feel free to ponder my utterances for as long as you like